Our first president, General George Washington, was the original commander in chief of America%26#039;s armed forces to defend its states. He was a fitting commander in chief, you can%26#039;t doubt his credentials. But is it really wise to have our top executive automatically be the commander in chief? Washington rose to that rank through military discipline as most generals do. It seems strange to me that it%26#039;s possible for people with no military experience to become commander in chief. The next military rank below commander in chief (is it 4 star general?) requires years upon years of service in the military.
I think commander in chief should be a presidential appointee with consent of the house or senate. They would be the top advisor and planner of military affairs. They would have little authority, they would exist more to counsel the house, senate and president and plan US involvement in potential wars and defense.
I am a McCain supporter, and I realize that my opinion if realized would hurt his chances, but I%26#039;m worried about Obama becoming commander in chief because I feel the position is wasted on him, especially at a time when we need a solid commander in chief. I think that this change would prevent situations like this in the future. Similarly, at the same time, we need capable presidents. Why can%26#039;t we have both? I think that having president be the commander in chief places too many constraints on our priorities, especially when we have wars ongoing and are in need of domestic solutions.|||I have no idea - but this is a really good question.
Another good question - why is she unqualified just because she%26#039;s a woman? Sure, she has no military experience, but neither did Obama or Clinton or Jimmy Carter!
